So that's 50% of global wealth in the hands of 0.011% of the global population (under 900,000 people). The top 91,000 individuals have more than 150% of the combined wealth of the bottom 6,000,000,000.

So...

1. Are those wikipedia figures right? They seem really unlikely?
2. If the figures are right, is it OK that 91,000 people hold more wealth than 6 billion people combined?
3. If the figures are correct, and if it's not OK, what the heck could we do about it?

The real question people should ask is "is this any different from the norm?". Just seems to me that history will probably show that it's always been roughly this way, probably right back to the conception of money.

Graveland wrote:
But seriously, if those stats are correct then it implies that a small group of individuals effectively control the global economy. We are little more than slaves occasionally afforded crumbs and trinkets to keep us in the illusion of freedom.

Yup. It's nuts. I almost can't believe the figures are correct.

The only interpretation would seem to be that 99.9% of us (which would include me, you, our doctor, our MP, and most bankers and footballers, basically every single person you have seen and will see in your entire life) are working for the benfit of a tiny elite.

Isn't it all comparative though?
Things are more expensive in rich countries, I live in a shithole in the middle of Asia and earn considerably less than I did when I was in the UK, my quality of life is much better though and I can afford to buy more stuff and go out every night.

Poor is a state of mind, unless you are in abject poverty and starving to death.

meme wrote:
The real question people should ask is "is this any different from the norm?". Just seems to me that history will probably show that it's always been roughly this way, probably right back to the conception of money.

Sounds like you're saying "well yeah that's a shame but that's just the way it is, no point worrying about it". Apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, but it's a good thing not all people have always had that fatalist attitude. The suffragettes, to give just one example.

Besides I think most of us in the privileged west are under the (apparently mistaken) belief that things are better and fairer now than they were in less "civilised" times.

I wasn't suggesting it's something to be ignored, merely that it's not anything new. I've seen more than a few people believe that this sort of divide only sprang into existence around the same time Dubya got elected. Though I would personally argue that, short of an outright Marxist revolution, it's literally impossible to change within our lifetime, probably even beyond that. It's pretty much the entire cornerstone for Western civilisation (and arguably Eastern now too, looking at China and Saudi Arabia). That's not a fatalist attitude, that's a wholly realistic one. Worry about it, query it, even rebel against it, by all means, but also accept that any sort of change is going to be one very slow step at a time, instead of just happening after an overnight sit-in at Wall Street.

@meme Yes of course, but every marathon begins with a single step or whatever that metaphor is. We shouldn't do nothing and accept the status quo just because as you say, little is likely to change in our lifetimes.
Edit: OK that's basically what you said too. I'm just saying the little steps are worth taking.

I'm also not saying that we should strive for no disparity at all, I think that would be a bad thing aside from being impossible in the real world. I'm just saying a slightly less obscene gulf between the haves and the have nots would be better for everyone.

meme wrote:
The real question people should ask is "is this any different from the norm?". Just seems to me that history will probably show that it's always been roughly this way, probably right back to the conception of money.

Sounds like you're saying "well yeah that's a shame but that's just the way it is, no point worrying about it". Apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, but it's a good thing not all people have always had that fatalist attitude. The suffragettes, to give just one example.

Besides I think most of us in the privileged west are under the (apparently mistaken) belief that things are better and fairer now than they were in less "civilised" times.

Pareto (an Italian economist/statistician/engineer/sociologist) put forward the 80:20 rule after studying wealth data spread over hundreds years from various locations. That is, 20% of the people trend to own 80% of the wealth in any system. The numbers above seem to be much worse than that but should probably be weighted to take account of Aargh's point of any global figures being greatly skewed by developed countries' wealth.

Yes wealth is distributed as such, its called a power law in physics/math and it can arise if fluctuations are amplified instead of suppressed by the internal dynamics of the system which is a fancy way of expressing the old 'rich-get-richer' saying. So the more money you have the more money you tend to generate. Historically the middle and lower classes have tried to fend off this dynamic by forming unions , claiming various benefits etc , but even these damns seem to have been swept off as of lately. Not sure what the solution to all of this is at the moment except for people to educate themselves.